Yes, editorial page editor Jim Vesely spilled the beans today about how they endorse candidates. Contrary to conspiracy-laden assertions of the liberal blogosphere, the Times editorial board actually uses their brains. Granted, while one may not find it easy to agree with the totality of their endorsements in any given year, you've got to give them points for honesty.

A couple of Vesely's points are particularly pertienent to past discussions here at Sound Politics about how this process works. Notably contrary to the assertions of the netroots that their way of thinking about candidates is the only pure way, Vesely says:

As with any daily newspaper in a country divided, a region divided and a state divided, readers and commentators tend to look in a mirror when deciding how their daily news, opinion and comic strips appeal to them that day. That explains why anyone can cherry-pick an endorsement and argue selectively that the paper's judgment is flawed.

I like to think our world, the one you and I share, is more complicated than that. An endorsement for a major political office is not a checklist; it is a combination of events and emotions that catch a moment and, with an editorial eye, tries to bring an accumulation of opinions to a boil.

Not a "checklist" you say? Josh Feit at the Stranger thinks it should be so. I'm disappointed...well, not really, Feit's error on this point was discussed in the 2nd half of this post outlining a different implosion of the liberal mind.

Also of interest, Vesely concedes the closeness of the McGavick endorsement. Ah, and here I thought it was all about the estate tax, and Frank Blethen generally being a despicable person. Silly me.

Yet of even more of note, was this revelation: "On Reichert, the staff was nearly unanimous for the incumbent." The staff? You mean the staff included on this list? That would be the same staff that would likely admit they themselves tilt to the left-of-center. But they nearly all supported endorsing Reichert? That must mean they found Darcy Burner exceptionally unqualified. Oh dear.

We at Sound Politics can likely agree the Times isn't our favorite source for editorial writing, though it beats reading the Left Coast version of the New York Times, the Seattle PI. Yet, you have to give the Times points for candor, and for having the gumption to speak their mind, rather than bow to the close-minded, liberal mood that dominates the city from which they publish.